September 12, 2008

"... comparing her to Islamic fundamentalists, Pontius Pilate and porn stars, and dismissing her as a dysfunctional brood mare who can't possibly be the biological mother of the kid she was too dumb to abort. Who knows? It's a long shot, but if you could pull it off, a really cunning media manipulator might succeed in manipulating Howie's buddies into spending the month after Labor Day outbidding each other in some insane Who Wants To Be An Effete Condescending Media Snob?"Mark Steyn is particularly amusing lashing at what WaPo's Howard Kurtz has to say about the McCain campaign trying to manipulate the media. Power Line has something to say too.

I'd say something about it myself too, but I simply haven't got the time this morning. Please carry on without me.

ADDED: I have a few minutes now, so let me read Kurtz closely:

The McCain camp has already accused the MSM of trying to "destroy" the governor of Alaska. So any challenge to her record or her veracity can now be cast as the product of an oh-so-unfair press. Which, needless to say, doesn't exactly please reporters.....

As for the sudden insistence that Palin is a delicate flower who must be shielded from harsh rhetoric, take this example.

She doesn't need to be shielded. Bring on the "harsh rhetoric." It's made her the most popular politician in America. We bloggers ravenously await your next nugget of harsh rhetoric. And we will make you look bad when it's sexist or unfair. If that makes you mad... well, who cares if you're mad? But it's not going to win you back the respect that you lose when your "harsh rhetoric" is biased.

The lipstick imbroglio is evidence that the Drudge/Fox/New York Post axis can drive just about any story into mainstream land. Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig? What about the fact that McCain has used "lipstick on a pig" before? What about the book by that title by former McCain aide Torie Clarke? Never mind: get the cable bookers to line up women on opposite sides of the lipstick divide and let them claw at each other!

Blah! I'm sick of the lipstick thing, but please. The fact that there is an old expression isn't enough. What if Obama opponents took to saying "pot calling the kettle black" or "call a spade a spade." There would be no end to the outrage... and rightly so. I don't what to hear the "old expression" argument from anyone who won't say they'd make the same argument if the tables were turned.

And Howard... "line up women on opposite sides of the lipstick divide and let them claw at each other..." Now, you're using the image of the catfight! You're trying to say that Obama didn't mean to refer to a pig, and you're clearly referring to cats and doing so in a way that is traditionally used to diminish women.

Good Paul Krugman column in the NY Times today. My guess is that McCain picked Palin partly because she could lie with a straight face.

Blizzard of LiesBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: September 11, 2008

Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?

These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies.

Only somewhat on-topic, but the left's hyperventilation over Gibson's attempt to pin Palin on "the Bush Doctrine" attracts the scorn of even TalkLeft! I used to wonder what would happen to Metallica when James ran out of interesting riffs, and it strikes me that this election season is the political equivalent of St. Anger: what would happen if the left ran out of real talking points? A toturously long, incohesive morass.

The sex ed in kndergarten is not a lie. Documents have been produced that show Obama inserted the language in the bill in his own writing before the final printing and passage of the bill. He changed it himself from grades 6-12 to kindergarten-12.

That is also not a lie. When Palin realized the bridge was going to cost more than Congress was sending, she said thanks but no thanks.

They are in the tank for Obama and see their dream of manipulating the public slip sliding away.

They know that their mask of impartiality has been torn away and they are shown to be bigoted, snobbish, elites who have nothing but disdain and contempt for the greater portion of the American people.

They realize that people no longer believe much of what they say since they have been exposed (see above) and they have cried wolf too many times. If a real scandal re: Palin or McCain were to arise, we won't believe it because of all the lies and smears.

They are spinning themselves into the ground trying and it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of people.

The MSM are engaged in a huge high stakes gamble. They are risking their collective reputations and the future of their profession on the chance that they will score a Watergate success and turn up something on McCain or Palin that will give the election to their anointed one. If they succeed, it becomes a case study at J-school and media stock prices don't tank.

If they fail, and they have thus far, it becomes a Lemmings story of mass suicide at business schools, like the Acme Buggy whip one I worked there. Industry tanks due to mass delusions of grandeur

No one outside the BOS-WASH corridor pays much attention to the NYT. Fox has effectively countered the other networks in terms of viewership. Newspaper circulation is down over most of the country. Rush Limbaugh has an audience at least as large as the broadcast networks combined. More and more people are getting their information from blogs, which to say the least, offer a variety of viewpoints. And their abysmal performance in this election cycle has further reduced their diminishing credibility.In short, the media's ability to influence anyone who isnt already already an Obama supporter is nil. The republicans can and should be flogging the MSM as hard as they can--it will resonate.

Of course the media is mad. They are mad as hell. They, the media, wanted to make history. They wanted to be directly responsible for the coronation of the first female or Black president. They cared not that neither was qualified or had no experience. The media created experience and qualifications for them out of whole cloth. To paraphrase an infamous former president, this campaign, Clinton and Obama, is the biggest fairy tale in the world.

Now it looks like there will be no royal coronation. A woman of the frontier, a commoner, one of the little people that the founding fathers of this nation wanted to actually run the government, has stepped on the field of battle to claim the crown for all of America. All of us who know what it is like to really work for a living, all of us who have messy family lives, all of us who have to struggle to raise families, protect our jobs, and pay our bills.

The media had nothing to do with this. How dare John McCain by- pass them and not ask their permission? How dare he not leak the information to the media so they could be prepared? How dare he make a bold choice and leave them in the dark? How dare he select a self sufficient, self reliant, and individually responsible person; a person who looks like America, to be his running mate?

Yes, they are mad. Tough! The media has done more harm than good. They are hypocrites. They are nothing more than a propaganda machine in the tank for any Democrat; Obama is the choice this year. If they have to destroy a woman to get him in they will sell their mothers to whore houses to do it.

Where were they when the Obama smear machine tried to destroy Palin within twenty four hours of her pick? Where was there righteous indignation? They were refashioning all of the smears into effete language, acceptable to the reading public. Yes the media is mad. Too bad. All they are doing is getting the people mad. At them. As their man who would be king said- ENOUGH!

I surmise that Kurtz has recently written something even handed about McCain or Palin. When that happens a member in good standing of the MSM must have a public confession of loyalty to the Democrat party. The more unfair the better. This column is Kurtz's mea culpa and penance.

I'm always left wondering why even "respectable rightwingers" find Howard to be a "good guy", when the lasting impression I've had from the times I've read him is that he spins things pretty soundly.

He lost me in this collossus of idiocy when he neglected to mention even the most obvious "lie" by Obama, which was put in an advert and run with in speeches for days, concerning the "100 years" thing McCain said. What a hack.

p.s. Roger, I commented on that new Obama ad in the "Natural Look Cafe" thread. What a strange approach the ad signals, eh? Maybe it and the ad-libs yesterday about the seniors playing bridge at his granma's nursing home are meant to push the older demographic even further away, in a sort of Daltrey-esque show of youthful vigor?

A former Hillary adviser is quoted as saying that the "Obama people have got to be kicking themselves' for not putting choosing Clinton as his No. 2."

IMO, the rest of this campaign isn't about Obama, isn't about McCain, isn't really about Palin anymore.

It's about Hillary.

It's about how Hillary was allowed to be treated by the DNC, when MSNBC and media were beyond sexist, they were downright misogynistic.

The RNC and McCain are putting their foot down with Palin, not only to show the DNC how one stands up for one's candidate and doesn't allow the same sleazy treatment, but also to SHOW UP the other side, by not-so-subtle comparison.

There are people today who still say Hillary would've detracted more from the Obama campaign than she would've given it.

Is that true? Come on now. Really? Can there be any doubt today that an Obama/Clinton ticket would've been unbeatable?

Former Law Students -- I think of Krugman's political musings as the column that writes itself. The headline tells you all you need to know -- it's Krugman's weekly Cliff Notes version of old Josh Marshall stuff.

Now Krugman did have a good column, recently, on debt deflation. I doubt it will get emailed as much.

While skipping the link to the Krugman column, I noticed Judith Warner has something new about Palin. I was expecting more bile. But Warner is a more interesting thinker than Krugman and now she has turned reflective. She considers why pro-Palin women disdain liberals like her. At the Republian rally she attends, she quotes "Businessman Scott Maclean on the Democratic Party: 'Their attitude is: you don’t get it and they don’t expect you to get it because they’re smarter than you...'"

That would be a great TV show. It would be better and funnier than American Idol or dancing with the stars. It would have buffoonery and gasbaggery of the highest levels. People could actually see that the media is made up of fools, clowns, drooling idiots, cretins, and morons and how those terms are complimentary to them.

Of course the PC people would never, ever let a show that demonstrated that on the air. It would be an insult ot those brave, courageous, hard working journalists.

Please Trooper York - don't deride our Blog's Hostess with the Mostess profession that way. She is just carrying out her promise to steadfastly adhere to her extremely high standards of "Cruel Neutrality" (CN). Folks of all ideologies and parties have suffered the searing pain of Ms. Althouse's penetrating and original analysis. There is elements of deep caring, beauty, and creativity to her CN - Bottom line, she is not telling me what I want to hear....she is telling me what I need to hear. And in the world of the blogosphere that is a very rare and selfless act.

I really don't understand why the media thinks it can get away with calling McCain's ads "lies" -- don't they realize there's an army of Davids (ht Instapundit) out there fact-checking their asses? I mean, this is 2008, and they got demolished over this kind of stuff back in 2004 -- did they think it wouldn't happen again? Especially when it's not as if it stopped after the 2004 elections -- it has been a constant process, and the MSM has been losing all along.There's concrete data to back up that assertion, too: falling circulation and advertising revenues. How delusional are they? The buggy whip case comparison is apropos.

Only somewhat on-topic, but the left's hyperventilation over Gibson's attempt to pin Palin on "the Bush Doctrine" attracts the scorn of even TalkLeft!

Wow! Simon, I posted last night how moderate the comments were at TalkLeft about this (about another post). I don't know why I went to TalkLeft, but because many were pro-Hillary, and I have been observing the Hillary Clinton forums, I think I subconsciously realised they might be more impartial.

It was only my second time going there (to see Hamster's commenters reactions about the diavlog).

I'm reading the comments on TalkLeft, and I'm really surprised how frank people are about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. I remember a commenter with two Masters saying that too.

Only the Left calls Bush's foreign policy of preemptive strikes "The Bush Doctrine". It was a gotcha question by Gibson, and she vigourously asked him to refine his wording. He did so by looking like a pedantic ass, especially since he said it very slowly, whilst peering down his granny reading glasses at her.

The reason the Left do not believe she knows what the Bush docrtine is, is because first, it allows them to say she is dumb, but they also DO believe she doesn't get the NYT, and other papers there.

She's a voracious newspaper reader. It's the first thing she does every day, apparently: NYT, WaPo, WSJ, including ALL the Alaskan dailies.

When Palin realized the bridge was going to cost more than Congress was sending, she said thanks but no thanks.

She was happy to have the Bridge to Nowhere built until she realized she would have to kick some state money in. Then she said, "Forget the bridge, just send me the money." Then she took the $223 million dollar earmarked for the bridge and spent it on other things.

It's like proudly saying "I did not waste $500 on a pair of shoes" when you spent the $500 on a new handbag. Such logic flies only on the I Love Lucy show.

Or does pvb picture Sarah Palin as a lovable lunatic like Lucy Ricardo? This is a valid interpretation, I suppose. But would we have wanted that wacky redhead a heartbeat (or stroke) away from the Presidency?

Whether Mark Steyn is right or not, something's happened and it's working. Rasmussen has McCain pulling into a statistically significant lead today, Gallup's given him one for a week, and a slew of state polling has seen McCain post =>270 in the model electoral college for the first time that I can recall this season.

Whodathunk lesbian separatists like Mark Steyn, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh hard wired on womens issues and equal rights would finally get their candidate in 2008, and be righteously called to duty?

When asked during a gubernatorial debate about it, she expressed cautious approval.

"I wouldn’t [cancel the project]. I’m not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation — in the position of strength that they have right now — they’re making those efforts for the state of Alaska to build up our infrastructure. I would not get in the way of progress."

Yes.The current law covers grades 6-12. This was meant to cover kids from the beginning of puberty to the brink of adulthood and marriage

Since the law was passed, girls are starting to develop at younger and younger ages, pushing the minimum grade down. (Learning about the mysteries of your changing body should be contemporary with the changes.) Further, pedophilia has been shown to be rampant in our society, which means that at a minimum, kindergartners need to learn about good touch/bad touch, which is the age appropriate part of the kindergartener curriculum. Just click on your local Megan's Law website to see how many perverts live in your community, or even along your kids walk to school.

While it's true that parents can give their children anti-predator lessons, realize that parents account for one-third of molested children. In those cases the molestor is usually the father. This shows that to protect all of our children, anti-predator education needs to take place in schools.

The bill was sponsored by a single woman, and cosponsored by three Catholic moms and a Jewish dad. The bill was supported by the Illinois PTA, the Illinois State Medical Society, and the Illinois Public Health Association.

The interaction between Palin and the press presents an interesting dynamic, and it happens to be the opposite of the conventional wisdom that the '92-version of Team Clinton had devised. Back then, it was all about the War Room, immediate response, let no cycle pass without answering the latest charge, etc. Team O says it will do even more of that -- no Swift Boating! No More Lies! Yet, the more of that they do, the worse things get, and it all comes across as high-decible screeching at the choir. When O himself is doing his "I'm angry as hell and I'm not GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE" routine, he looks ridiculous, weak, a colossal jerk. Isn't anyone over at Team O h/q even watching how he looks when he does that?

As Steyn's piece highlights, Team McCain is doing just the opposite -- they're delighted with the onslaught of the attacks on Gov Palin. The response from Team McCain has mostly been -- can you believe this? They're fully in the Ronnie "there they go again" mode. The best weapons are humor, ridicule, a dismissive shrug. When the McC surrogates get into high-dudgeon mode about silliness (the lipstick comes to mind), not so good. But they have left that to the surrogates. McC and Palin want to sound normal, and so last night McC himself had something nice to say about O the community organizer (which also happened to point to O's weakness not his strength).

So far, it seems that Team McCain has pushed its game up a notch or three, and is doing all the big stuff right; Team O has forgotten how to play, and even who they're playing against.

Here's the link to that quote, BTW. And by "our congressional delegation" she clearly means the Pork King, Senator Stevens.

It's one thing to be a reformer Governor, and vote down a riotous project, and symbol of Washington's earmark excess (which Biden and Obama voted for TWICE...), but it's quite another to be running for office and go up against one of the most distinguished Senators before election.

garage mahal said...Whodathunk lesbian separatists like Mark Steyn, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh hard wired on womens issues and equal rights would finally get their candidate in 2008, and be righteously called to duty?

Strange isn't it.

Kinda like a young presidential candidate who built his entire campaign around CHANGE and then after ignoring all the female, young, outside of Washington VP candidates selects a man 4 years from 70 years old who has been a senator for nearly 15 YEARS longer than John McCain.

kindergartners need to learn about good touch/bad touch, which is the age appropriate part of the kindergartener curriculum

Noble and well-intentioned as that may be, it's debatable whether that's what 4 and 5-year-olds need, especially since it's based on the assumption that pedophilia is "rampant." I recall that liberals were outraged at the suggestion that conservatives thought all Muslims were terrorists. Since when did all adults become pedophiles? And Republicans are the fear-mongers?

Anyway, the bill Obama steered through his committee mandates that any course on sexual behavior provide age-appropriate info not just on personal space and respecting others, but also contraception, STDs, abstinence, unwanted pregnancy, sexual assault and statutory rape.

You have read the bill, right? It's not just about good touch/bad touch.

Further, pedophilia has been shown to be rampant in our society, which means that at a minimum, kindergartners need to learn about good touch/bad touch, which is the age appropriate part of the kindergartener curriculum.

I am, or will be, the parent teaching my kids good touch/bad touch.

How dare schools think they can do this for me, and when it's appropriate for MY child?

"Age appropriate" sex education is the worst kind of group think I've ever seen government officials attempt to rationalise. What next? Teach teenagers all about kissing and making out?

Lets talk about how Obama said he wanted to get money out of politics, which is why he supports public financing, and then how Obama later rejected public financing because he was making so much money.

Lets talk about how Obama is the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate and has never stood up to his party bosses in Illinois.

Lets talk about how Obama is one of the biggest porkers in Congress and how he wasted hundreds of millions sending it back to Illinois for his pet projects, including a hefty sum for his wife's employer (who had just doubled her salary).

Lets talk about how Obama when faced with the greatest foreign policy decision in the last 10 years, blew it completely.

Lets talk about how Obama says he wants a tax cut for the middle class when in fact his tax cut is not a cut, its a welfare payment to 50% of Americans.

Lets talk about how Obama would appoint Justices who recently voted to give constitutional rights to terrorists, who voted to excoriate the individual right to bear arms, and who voted to allow the government to take property from citizens for basically any reason.

vbs, Palin was more enthusiastic about the BTN than you indicate, empathizing with the "nowhere" folks, and saying that she and the Ketchikanese were going to make a good team to build the bridge.

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/511471.html

In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.

She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens.

"OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug.

Well, actually, Sloany (as I like to call you, please let me know if it's not to your taste :), I think that by focusing on Palin, media think they are doing a favour to Obama -- they think she looks worse in comparison to him.

I think "the folks" think differently: Palin looks like the anti-Obama in just about everything.

It's a working strategy for the Repubs, but can it last? Perhaps not.

Do we really have to wait 2 weeks for the first Presidential debate? Ugh, I can't take a fortnight of pig this, and moose that.

"Further, pedophilia has been shown to be rampant in our society, which means that at a minimum, kindergartners need to learn about good touch/bad touch, which is the age appropriate part of the kindergartener curriculum."

I am, or will be, the parent teaching my kids good touch/bad touch.

I forget which one of the leftie drones it was who explained the party line to me -- might have been FLS, might have been UWS -- but apparently the reason why it is absolutely vital that our Good Friends in Government provide this service is that the parents might be molesters. Of course, the notion that the teachers might be molesters somehow never occurs to these "the government can do no wrong unless there are Republicans involved" types.

But regardless of whether or not it is a good idea to teach kindergarteners bits of sex ed, it remains an objective fact that Obama supported doing so. Ergo Krugman is lying.

IMO parents should decide what & when a grade school child is taught re biology and predators.

Even when the parent is the predator? Interesting choice.

But under the proposed change to the Illinois law, parents would have continued to have the right to opt their kid out, without any penalty or stigma for their kid.

Also do you have link to support your claim that pedophilia is growing

I never said that. What I said is that we now realize how widespread pedophile predation is. Have you heard about the pedophile priests? Youth pastor perverts? Dateline NBC? Megan's Law?

You don't need to assume anything about child molesters in your neighborhood; just google up a link.

age-appropriate info not just on personal space and respecting others, but also contraception, STDs, abstinence, unwanted pregnancy, sexual assault and statutory rape.

Information on contraception, STDs, abstinence, and unwanted pregnancy is not age-appropriate, duh. Information under the rubrics sexual assault and statutory rape boil down to good touch/bad touch at the kindergarten level.

It's about how Hillary was allowed to be treated by the DNC, when MSNBC and media were beyond sexist, they were downright misogynistic.

Hillary caused her own downfall by trying to control the media and demand she be treated fairly on her terms. She defined what fairness is. If not, no access to her. They got a little tired of her schtick. Especially when she kept demanding apologies. Of course Mark Penn did not help matters. He was the evil genius and brain of Hillary. She caused her own downfall and everyone wants to blame it on some ism or ist. Oh, and she had her own worst enemy, besides herself, Bill. Of course, her fairy tale and mythical stories and life did not help either.

That's how the sainted Senator Stevens' son, Ben (then State Senator) described people beneath him, in rural towns like Wasilla.

Here in Wasilla, a town of strip-mall sprawl and eccentric backwoods dwellers, people still talk about the time in 2004 when an irate resident contacted Ben Stevens, state Senate president, to question his vague explanations for taking consulting fees from an oil field-services company.

“Your [sic] just more valley trash,” the senator wrote back. The grammar was wrong, but the name stuck.

She was feeding off of this absolutely condenscending "I know better because you're podunk and illiterate folks" sentiment when campaigning.

For the record, Stevens' son is a Republican too, like her.

But that whiff of elitism has been more than visible within more Liberal confines for the past three weeks.

For this nation to advance and recognise that talent and intelligence can come outside of the "Coasts", that attitude must stop. It's breaking America.

Then she took the $223 million dollar earmarked for the bridge and spent it on other things.

Which she was entitled to do under the terms of the earmark. She spent the money on frivolous, silly, and wasteful things like infrastructure; roads, highways, and such.

Man, those women really know how to spend money extravagantly. Better they stay home, pop out babies, max out the credit cards on QVC and leave important government spending and government projects to the men.

The mainstream media is upset? To appropriate a favorite term of Beth's: call the wahhhh-mbulance.

Democrats are self-destructing over Palin, whose nomination has trumped their man in every way. Bless their hearts, the harder they try, the more they sabotage themselves.

For the longest time I've been apathetic about this election. But since Palin entered the scene, it has become about so much more than "Obama or McCain" (neither of whom floats my boat). We might just be witnessing the death throes of the "fourth estate" as we have known it and have been manipulated by it (yes, Howard, you had it backwards) all these years.

Shorter FLS: "If you're not in favor of comprehensive sex ed for 5-year-old, you're on the side of pedophiles."

"Comprehensive" refers to a program covering grades K-12, with different age and development-appropriate curricula for each grade.

Sadly, and sickeningly, several "Christian" pastors are sexual predators. Sex columnist Dan Savage keeps track of news stories of pervert pastors, and has posted over 70 columns of such stories on slog.thestranger.com under "Youth Pastor Watch."

I read on some liberal blog that they want Ivy league educated elites at the top levels of government to rule, err lead them. Basically a slave mentality among the left. They just don't understand the ideals which founded the nation.

How dare schools think they can do this for me, and when it's appropriate for MY child?

How dare you make such a bold anti-government statement! How dare you deprive the government school indoctrination system of teaching your children what is right and wrong. Worse, how dare you deprive the special interest groups, consultants, and text books companies from all of that government pork barrel money. How dare you be anti-capitalist. Are you a commie or something; depriving people from making a dishonest buck? :)

How dare you deprive the government school indoctrination system of teaching your children what is right and wrong.

Excellent observation. We need to get our government out of the business of educating our children. Imagine the effectiveness of our school systems if we just allowed parents and free market forces forge our educational system!

Lets talk about how Obama is one of the biggest porkers in Congress and how he wasted hundreds of millions sending it back to Illinois for his pet projects, including a hefty sum for his wife's employer (who had just doubled her salary).

Not much to talk about because the earmark for the University of Chicago Medical Center did not pass. They did not get a dime out of his request.

I'm surprised you devotees of the truth did not discover this.

The million bucks to build a new pavilion seemed like a fair exchange for the $90 million in free care the medical center gave to government-insured patients (Medicare and Medicaid) the year before. Besides, the hospital needs more room to give away free patient care.

Plus Obama asked for five times as much money for a competitor, Northwestern University's Prentice Women's Hospital. And as far as we know, he doesn't even have a girlfriend working there. He didn't get that, either.

Sarah Palin's reform resume would be remarkable in any political career. She entered politics at 28, winning a seat on the Wasilla city council as an opponent of tax increases. After she defeated Wasilla's three-term incumbent mayor four years later, she swept the mayor's cronies out of the bureaucracy.

In 2003, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed her to the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Bear in mind that Mr. Murkowski had already served as junior U.S. Senator from Alaska for 22 years. Mr. Murkowski was junior senator for so long because Senator Ted Stevens (who was recently indicted for corruption) had lifetime tenure in the senior post.

Shortly after joining the oil and gas commission, Mrs. Palin commenced an ethics probe of the state's Republican party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, involving conflicts of interest with oil companies. The probe resulted in a $12,000 fine for the party chair.

She crossed party lines in 2004 to join a Democratic representative's ethics complaint over an international trade deal against the Republican Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who had ties to the Murkowski machine. Mr. Renkes resigned.

In late 2005, Mrs. Palin announced her run for Governor before then-Governor Murkowski had announced his intention to stand for re-election. In a three-way primary, Mrs. Palin got 51% to Mr. Murkowski's 19%. At the center of this campaign was a debate over competing proposals to build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska.

These columns wrote about Gov. Murkowski's smashing defeat by Mrs. Palin, noting that his pipeline proposal had been tainted by reports of sweetheart deals with energy companies. The editorial ended: "If Republicans are run out of Congress in November, one big reason will be that, like Mr. Murkowski, they have become far more comfortable running the government than reforming it." That is what happened, as disgusted GOP voters turned away from their own party and ceded control of Congress to the Democrats.

Against the odds, Mrs. Palin won that 2006 election against the state's former Democratic governor Tony Knowles. Most recently, she promoted the effort of her GOP lieutenant governor to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young, who with Senator Stevens created the earmark that sank the GOP, the notorious "bridge to nowhere."

Her entire political career has been about reforming what she sees as corrupt, elitist, or nonsensical.

You can argue with this or that bill. You can't argue with a whole career.

it is absolutely vital that our Good Friends in Government provide this service

Because of all the money to be made out of those programs, consulting fees, text book printing, training materials, seminars, and hiring teachers. Millions of government dollars all going to people who cannot make an honest living.. All those people depend on you to make a living.

Re Biden leaving the ticket, I think Obama is in a trap. If he throws Biden under the bus, he vividly illustrates McCain's charge that he isn't ready to lead: when the moment of choice came, Obama chose. And then, when the politics of his choice didn't look so good, he flip-flopped. The public accepts that people change their mind; America has internalized (although I think Palin would have done well to say explicitly) Keynes' rejoinder to the accusation that he changed his mind: "when the facts change, sir, I change my mind. And what do you do?" The public is less tolerant, however, of flip flops (i.e. changing one's position based solely on political expediency).

Sadly, and sickeningly, several "Christian" pastors are sexual predators. Sex columnist Dan Savage keeps track of news stories of pervert pastors, and has posted over 70 columns of such stories on slog.thestranger.com under "Youth Pastor Watch."

True, disgusting, and irrelevant.

And I've heard that many former law students are pedophiles, too. Now that you've aired the stupid but predictable ad hominem argument, can we talk about the bill?

Information on contraception, STDs, abstinence, and unwanted pregnancy is not age-appropriate, duh.

Thanks for making my point. Again, have you read the bill?

It mandates that any instruction on sexual behavior must include age-appropriate information on STDs, contraception, sexual assault, statutory rape, and consequences of unwanted pregnancy. If there is no such thing, why write it into the bill? Duh.

I admit, it's a poorly written bill. One would think a renowned legal expert would make the instructions and intent more plain.

Do you think Biden will leave the Obama ticket? On his own, or from DNC pressure?

He is being chased by a mysterious black bus being driven by a cackling cankle queen. The question is will he be thrown under the bus or will he, in a gesture of great sacrifice and progressive honor, throw himself under the bus?

A few years ago, my daughter went on a trip to Arizona by herself. She was a pre-teen. I instructed her on what to do if there was any "inappropropriate" behavior. She is to tell people that her father is old and crazy and carries guns and all of his friends are old and crazy and carry guns.

I also told her that under no circumstances is she ever to report inappropriate behavior to her school. She will tell me first. I will call the police and see that the person or persons are arrested. I will tell the school and I will tell anyone else.

Schools just cover things up out of fear of bad publicity. They will protect their employees as much as chruches do.

FLS -- You've now informed us that sexual predators include fathers, pastors, and priests.

What about teachers? Until you address that question, you have no grounds to give potential predators a reason to talk about sex with children.

I have young children of my own and while I recognize the need to talk about stranger danger, there's also a huge element of unreality about it.

Five-year-olds are not nuanced people. I say hi to a neighbor up the block and my son wonders who the stranger is and why I talked with her. The inappropriate touching message is downright confusing for kids that may still need their bums wiped.

Meanwhile, as you yourself point out, many acts of molestation are committed by relatives or friends (or priests or pastors or teachers) -- so the stranger danger message misses the mark.

I'm not one of those offended by Obama's bill. He is clearly a loving father. I'm sure his motives were good. Whatever filters down to the Kindergarten level will either be age appropriate or just fantastically confusing to them .

Re Victoria's question about replacing Biden with Hillary. agree that she would certainly make a much more spirited candidate on the stump and inject even more life into this campaign, but I am not sure that Hillary wants it. She can read the polls and see which way this is going; even if Obama wins she can run against him in 2012. If she loses as part of the ticket, thats got to affect her cachet. And replacing Biden will look like what it is: an act of desparation after an abysmal pick the first time around.

Lets talk about how Obama would appoint Justices who recently voted to give constitutional rights to terrorists, who voted to excoriate the individual right to bear arms, and who voted to allow the government to take property from citizens for basically any reason.

The Court voted to assert the judiciary's traditional habeas corpus powers. Absent war or insurrection, courts are entitled to demand an accounting from the executive branch. This is an issue of checks and balances, not a granting of rights to alleged terrorists.

In fact, the whole point of habeas corpus is to investigate the executive branch's determination that the detainees were "terrorists."

Half the dissent in Heller were appointed by Republicans. If you took the position we cannot afford to elect a George Herbert Walker Bush, I'd be a bit surprised but at least you'd be consistent.

And the Kelo majority comprised a Ford appointee, a Reagan appointee, and a GHW Bush appointee, along with the two Clinton appointees. So stop electing Republican Presidents as well as Democrats.

The most likely change to the Court over the next four years is that Stevens retires. A liberal for a liberal seems a fair exchange.

The simple fact is that our resident lefties continue to froth at the mouth over Palin pretty much shows that they lost their anchor. Parse away over the BTN or whether she's more qualified than the Kwisatz Haderach, until such time as you come up with photos of her in a threesome with a polar bear and Eskimo she'll have conservatives support.

Conservatives love her, lefties hate her so that's pretty much that. We should talk about something important like how Ohio State is going to kicks USCs ass this weekend.

High heels... Reminds of an anecdote a buddy once told me. He got his wife some 5 inch pumps and she looked at him and asked how in the hell she was supposed to walk in those and he said with a devilish grin. "Silly girl, you're not supposed to walk in them!"

FLS, I don't think that anyone takes the position that any judge appointed by a Republican will do. Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican, and I take him at his word that he is a political conservative, but jurisprudentially, he is of the liberal school of judging. So is Anthony Kennedy; he was appointed by Reagan, yes, but only because the administration ran out of steam and (to the horror of DoJ who knew exactly what AMK was) rolled over for the Senate, as JCG documents in distressing detail in Supreme Conflict.

It's ironic that Obama, who worked with the Annenberg Challenge to try to improve Chicago schools, would turn around and sign a mandate for K-12 sex education for Illinois school children. A persuasive argument can be made that it's just such mandates that contribute to the decline in public education. Everytime you add something that teachers "must" teach, you take away time from someting else- math, literature, writing - especially in elementary school where the kids don't have a choice of courses. You also add to the cost of education in the personnel required to document compliance with the mandates.

So it is ok to *try* kicking back government money to your wife's employer, provided you don't actually succeed in doing so?

Paying the UofC one million dollars to get 90 million dollars in free care sounds like a good deal to me. I'm not sure why revenant disagrees. They need to build more exam rooms, etc. for all the free care they give every year. If there were a conflict of interest, I'm not sure the cure would be for the University of Chicago Medical Center to be the one hospital in the country to receive no Federal building grants.

If there is no such thing, why write it into the bill?

Because it is a comprehensive bill, covering grades K-12.

Does it surprise you that the sex education appropriate to a high school senior would be inappropriate for a kid in kindergartner? Did you expect the Illinois General Assembly to include a comprehensive curriculum by age and development level in the bill? That would be beyond their area of expertise.

Did you expect the Illinois General Assembly to include a comprehensive curriculum by age and development level in the bill? That would be beyond their area of expertise.

You are talking about the Illinois General Assembly right? The one Obama belonged to? Crayons and coloring books would be beyond their expertise, let alone any meaningful legislation. They cannot even get a budget passed in time; year after year. They are too busy doing the work of the people; taking money form the special interests and lobbyists to legislate money to their people.

Guy’s seriously now. Obama was perfectly justified in writing a bill that mandates sex education in the public schools. He knew that his daughters were never going to a public school so why should he give a shit. It’s like when I vote for the all star team for the NHL. I hate hockey and it doesn’t effect me so who cares?

Does it surprise you that the sex education appropriate to a high school senior would be inappropriate for a kid in kindergartner?

Not particularly. I think the disagreement is whether there is appropriate sex education for a kindergardener, and whether the state should be mandating it, given all the things schools are required to do already.

Did you expect the Illinois General Assembly to include a comprehensive curriculum by age and development level in the bill?

Well, since they're mandating what's going to be taught, and failure to comply will open up schools to legal action, that doesn't seem too unreasonable.

Since the Senate bill expanded comprehensive sex ed to include every child in public school, one might have expected them to clarify what they wanted schools to provide and what that would look like.

Haven't we had enough of courts being forced to divine the intent of sloppy legislators? Maybe Obama doesn't want comprehensive sex ed for 5-year-olds. But that's what the bill he voted for mandates.

Dumping Biden and bringing Hillary on board at this point would be a big mistake for Obama. It would put the disparities between their experience in the glaring light of reality.

Sarah Palin has more experience than Hillary ever will. All Hillary has ever done is advocated. Sarah Palin has acted on things. Hillary never ran anything, including a law office. Palin has run a town, oil commission, and State. Hillary has been a back burner junior senator responsible for nothing. Palin has been in the forefront of her states politics operating a government.

Sarah Palin has actually worked for a living. Hard physical work. What has Hillary ever done. Sarah Palin and her husband have had to raise a large family and live self sustaining lives. Hillary has lived off the government teat, or through the influence of her husband through the government teat her whole career. Palin owns and knows how to shoot guns. Hillary makes up heroic feminist children’s stories about dodging bullets and sniper fire.

So, if Obama really wants to lose he can bring Hillary on. Then the Democrats will have two totally inexperienced candidates running for office; one, a community organizer and the other a professional political wife cum doormat.

Personally I don't like the stilleto heels cause they can be dangerous. One time I accidently hit the sweet spot and Mrs. Hoosier planted those things right in my left thigh and buttocks. It took the paramedics 45 minutes and a tow truck to pull that thing out.

All the talk about replacing Biden with Hillary! is fun but misses the point. What the Dems are really thinking, and what no one wants to say, is how can they do a 4th quarter substitution of Hillary! for replace O. Doing the switcheroo at No. 2 will prove, in a way that even the most particsan Dem would have to concede, that O is way out of his depth. There would be no way to recover.

FLS said...Paying the UofC one million dollars to get 90 million dollars in free care sounds like a good deal to me. I'm not sure why revenant disagrees. They need to build more exam rooms, etc. for all the free care they give every year.

I think the more interesting story is the UoC under Michelle's direction gave Axlerod a a contract to run a campaign to dump poor patients who had been consuming UoC resources onto other hospitals in the name of improving care.

Sen. Barack Obama's wife and three close advisers have been involved with a program at the University of Chicago Medical Center that steers patients who don't have private insurance -- primarily poor, black people -- to other health care facilities...

I've heard complaints from a handful of constituents, but I've also had calls from people in the health care profession complaining," said Ald. Toni Preckwinkle, whose 4th Ward is just north of the hospital. "The medical professionals who have come to me are accusing the university of dumping patients on its neighboring institutions. ... Whether it's being implemented in the way that's in the best interest of the patient, I can't tell you."

Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent, criticized the Democratic presidential hopeful Friday for having pledged on the campaign trail to expand health care for Americans at the same time his top political strategist "was running a campaign to cut coverage for the poor."...

At the same time, the Urban Health Initiative is improving the university's finances. Fewer poor patients are showing up at the U. of C. emergency room for basic medical treatment and are no longer admitted to the hospital. That frees beds for transplants, cancer care and other more-profitable medical procedures that the university prides itself on.

Let us look at the big picture here. There are approximately 12 +/- million gun owners. Two thirds to three fourths will vote for a candidate based on the gun rights issue.

Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA, a hunter, and a gun owner. That is a lot of voters- Democrats and Republicans, male and female, young and old, rich and poor- who care nothing about the Bush Doctrine, foreign policy, social services, or any other clap trap if it means that their rights to own and bear arms are denied.

From the August 31, 2008 Anchorage Daily News, showing how Palin took the federal BTN earmark money and spent it on other projects:

With pressure mounting over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark, requiring instead that some of the money be used for an airport. Alaska eventually received about half the money. Palin last fall directed that money to transportation projects statewide instead of for Ketchikan's bridge.http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/story/511232.html

The only contemporary "last fall" reference I could find on the adn.com web site (November 11, 2007):

Among the earmarks: $449 million for what critics have ridiculed as two "bridges to nowhere" -- one in Ketchikan and one across Knik Arm in Anchorage formally named Don Young's Way. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, also a Republican, last month refused to use any more money for the Ketchikan project, redirecting it for other purposes.http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/243567.html

the drill sgt. apparently believes poor people should use hospital emergency rooms for their basic medical care. Emergency rooms are designed for heart attack and stroke victims, not kids with sore throats. Rerouting kids with the sniffles to family practice clinics rather than let triage make them wait an eternity for care makes more sense to me, but I may be in the minority on this. I don't see how the profitability is the issue here: surely a hospital should prioritize a patient needing chemo over a kid needing cough syrup.

Fewer poor patients are showing up at the U. of C. emergency room for basic medical treatment and are no longer admitted to the hospital. That frees beds for transplants, cancer care and other more-profitable medical procedures that the university prides itself on.

Since the Senate bill expanded comprehensive sex ed to include every child in public school, one might have expected them to clarify what they wanted schools to provide and what that would look like.

Under the existing comprehensive sexual education act, Illinois school districts have been able to handle the job for grades 6-12, at least since 1986. Extending their established practices down to kindergartens is well within their experience as well as their expertise.

Similarly the Illinois General Assembly does not tell the State Troopers how they must do their jobs, nor does it tell the Secretary of State's office how to process new car registrations.

So there goes your whole argument about teachers not being likely predators.

As far as your obsession with clergy abusing children goes, do you really want to argue the number of incidences of clergy abuse versus the number of teachers (or other school employees) abusing children? Hint: there are a helluva lot more teachers in this country than preachers. So, for the sake of your own credibility, you should drop this whole line of argument.

2) Public schools in this country are - in many cases - failing at the rudimentary tasks of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic to children. When they show that they can handle the basics, then we can talk about adding other subjects to their repertoire.

3) Show me the amount of training that teachers have in sex education: answer in 99% of cases. NONE. So on what grounds are they even qualified to broach the subject?

4) You claim that only good touch/bad touch would be taught to kindergarteners. You don't know that would be the case. It might aid your argument if you could point to any proof at all that this is the case, but you can't because it doesn't exist. Parents have been complaining for many years that school-run sex education is playing a role in oversexualing children by teaching them how normal and natural it is to have oral sex at earlier and earlier ages because, hey, the only things you have to worry about from having sex too early is getting pregnant and contracting STDs, right?

5) Which brings me to my final point on the subject: sex education is ultimately a matter of moral education. Sexuality is something which should be talked about in the context of an overall value system: teaching young women not to devalue themselves by offering sexual favors in exchange for perceived love, teaching young men that there is more to intimacy than penetration, etc. On that score, teachers are specificially NOT qualified - either by training or by right. That is the exclusive domain of parents and forcing sex education from the first day of a child's schooling is yet another example of the government intruding on family rights and responsibilities.

You may feel differently, but that doesn't give you or all your "the government is the answer" friends the right to jam it down my throat.

P.S. Before you raise the specious "but you can opt out" argument. That's a bunch of horsehockey. If 25 kids out of 30 take the class, the remaining 5 whose parents stand up and refuse to have their children indoctrinated will be ostracized to some degree or another by the other 25. Why? So you can decide what my child does and does not need to know and when they need to know it.

Get out of my family's business, you don't have the qualifications to tell me how to raise my children and Obama sure as hell doesn't either. Both you and he can take your "sex education for kindergartners" and put it in a place you should learned about in your sex education class under the subject of "sodomy."

Paying the UofC one million dollars to get 90 million dollars in free care sounds like a good deal to me. I'm not sure why revenant disagrees.

Because I'm much more intelligent than you. You've got the order wrong.

First they provided the free care. Then Obama got elected to the Senate. Then they gave her a $194,000 raise. Then Obama tried to kick a million bucks their way. Obama wasn't giving them money in exchange for their providing free care; they were doing that anyway. The only thing that was new was his wife's mysterious $122,000 to $316,000 raise.

...the Illinois General Assembly does not tell the State Troopers how they must do their jobs, nor does it tell the Secretary of State's office how to process new car registrations.

Again, thanks for making my point.

They are telling educators that they must provide a comprehensive sex ed program for 5-year-olds, and that it must include age-appropriate information on sexual assault, STDs, contraceptives, results of unwanted pregnancy, financial responsibility for any children they bear, etc., etc. Failure to provide such material would be a violation of state law.

Obama wasn't giving them money in exchange for their providing free care; they were doing that anyway. The only thing that was new was his wife's mysterious $122,000 to $316,000 raise.

No mystery here. Michelle was promoted to vice president for community and external affairs. Her salary was commensurate with the other vice presidents'.

Further, if the sought earmark was a quid pro quo, then how did the Obamas benefit from the $5 million earmark sought for Prentice Women's Hospital? As I wrote previously, if Obama was showing favoritism to his wife's employer, why would he show five times as much favoritism to his wife's employer's competitor?

School teachers in Illinois are already teaching age-appropriate sex education and have for decades. The changes proposed by Carol Ronen would have extended that to earlier grades.

Whether he likes it or not, John McCain's opposition puts him on the same side as the pedophiles. Perhaps he would like to present a more nuanced position.

Pastor_Jeff said... There's some truth to the media being manipulated by McCain.

They can't be manipulated by Obama, though, because they've volunteered to be used by him.

Great post.

======================the drill sgt. apparently believes poor people should use hospital emergency rooms for their basic medical care. Emergency rooms are designed for heart attack and stroke victims, not kids with sore throats. Rerouting kids with the sniffles to family practice clinics rather than let triage make them wait an eternity for care makes more sense to me, but I may be in the minority on this.

Maybe you are in the minority, FLS. Every hospital wishes it didn't have black parasites, illegals with no health insurance, poor old Medicare types (the GOMER's), and 'hos in off-business hours seeking a warm pimp-free zone where they might score some free narcotics if they moan and bellow in patient reception long enough.Every hospital wishes it could get rid of them, but get hung up on the ethics of patient dumping.Not UofC. They figured out a way to bus the refuse halfway across the City or out to the suburbs to "family practice clinics".

Notice that UofC did not set up it's own "family practice clinic" to serve the Southside Chicago mootchers and scumbags.

Quite smart, actually.

Bus the bums around. Some will not want to go anyways and have to explain to their pimp how they got stranded in Evanston and only scored two lousy Percocets. Or wait a day in a clinic in a rival 'hood surrounded by gangstas not kindly disposed to you being there, or old GOMERs facing an 80-buck cab bill or 2 hours of bus and subway hassle...

They pull that scam off, the savings in a month or so paid for Michelle Obama's salary (and clout) and the 3/4 million Team Axelrod contract.

Yes, Victoria, that was wildly inappropriate. And also explains at least a part of Obama's recent panic attacks. Hoosier Daddy-I live in West Hollywood and can probably help you with those size 12 shoes. Also, please kick USC's ass into tomorrow. Thanks.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Palin, called the comments "name-calling."

"It's not surprising that the Barack Obama and his celebrity supporters continue to tear down Governor Palin with little more than blatant name-calling," she said. "It's clear they're threatened by a candidate who actually has a record of achieving reform and change, while Barack Obama just talks about it."

Then she said, "Forget the bridge, just send me the money." Then she took the $223 million dollar earmarked for the bridge and spent it on other things.

It's remarkable how many people talk about earmarks and don't have the foggiest notion of what they are. Earmarks do NOT send money to a state. They merely specify what some of that money will be spent on. By definition, if an earmark is rejected it does not alter the money going to a state - it simply leaves it up to the discretion of the state governor and legislature what to spend the money on.

It's like proudly saying "I did not waste $500 on a pair of shoes" when you spent the $500 on a new handbag.

No, it's not like that. Not remotely.

But I am amused by this sudden if bizarre anger about earmarks coming from the Democratic Party. Do I even need to tell you what Senator Obama's position on earmarks is?

Henry's comment above is exactly right. I'd add to that that I question the effectiveness of school programs teaching "good touch/bad touch" and "stranger-danger". I found this study interesting. Basically, the researchers decided at the end that they just need to "refine developmentally appropriate information with concrete instructions and role-plays" so that even the smallest children (5-7 years old) will be able to "conceptualize" sexual abuse and accept that members of their own families might be abusers.

Sorry, but I don't want my 5 year old to even know what sexual abuse is. She knows that certain areas of her body are only to be touched by others (and just mom or dad or the doctor) when we are cleaning her or checking for a health problem. She knows that she needs to tell me or her dad if anyone touches her there otherwise. That's all she needs to know, and no big school program is necessary for that. Role-plays to help her learn that family members might abuse her, and here's what it might look like, are not necessary or advisable.

As to the qualification of educational professionals to teach these subjects, I would have to say that as an educational professional myself (formely--now staying home educating my own children), I do not agree. Even if the teacher took a special class to learn how to present that material, I would object if only because that takes away from other necessary courses teachers must take. And having been on the receiving end of many such courses, I can assure you they are less than useful or effective.

Look at this quote from the comments on Judith Warner's contact with actual Republicans.

"There really are 2 Americas and you visited the scary one.

Welcome home.

— Posted by Sandy"

At the end of Warner's Article, she refers to an article in edge.org where a psychologist tested whether conservatives could give the liberal point of view and liberals could give the conservative point of view.

YOu can guess which side was able. That is why we laugh when Liberals say they "Can't get their message out." when we all know their message and reject it.

But I am amused by this sudden if bizarre anger about earmarks coming from the Democratic Party.

It's the lying I object to. If Palin had not crowed about rejecting federal money I wouldn't have complained.

Sounds like somebody needs to find out who it is that pays for this "free" health care. (Medicare and Medicaid.) I'll give you a big hint - It's the US taxpayer and the Federal government.

I'll give you an even bigger hint: It's not the US taxpayer and the Federal government. The amount Medicare and Medicaid pay does not cover the cost of care.

The people who pay for this "free" health care are the insured patients and the self-pay patients -- everyone else who goes to the hospital.

By definition, if an earmark is rejected it does not alter the money going to a state - it simply leaves it up to the discretion of the state governor and legislature what to spend the money on.

So the state of Illinois could have taken the money that was supposed to have gone to the University of Chicago and reallocated it to Loyola University? Cowabunga! They could have taken money earmarked to repair a bridge over the Illinois River and used it to hold keggers for state employees?

Exactly, "who cares if you're mad?" It just occurred to me, reading your post, how Kurtz's complaint (at the "sudden insistence that Palin is a delicate flower who must be shielded from harsh rhetoric") resembles the widespread complaint over the past (Bush) years at the "stifling of dissent."

In both cases, the complaint is that the other side is unfairly or disingenuously constraining their right (or journalistic duty) to free expression, criticism, and inquiry. When in fact what they're complaining (or whining) about is that they can't freely express, criticize, and inquire without being subjected to free (or "harsh") scrutiny, criticism, expression in return. They (celebrities, commentators, journalists, professors, campaign spokesmen, whatever) can't say what they want without facing adverse consequences in the public agora! Imagine that! In other words, they (whether that's Dan Rather, Kurtz as proxy for Charlie Gibson, the Dixie Chicks et al, the Obama campaign, etc.) are the ones acting like delicate flowers who must be shielded from harsh rhetoric.

So they stamp their feet in frustration, and make Bush out to be tyrant, McCain out to be Machiavellian manipulator-- i.e. Rove(tm), Palin out to be "delicate flower"... or, according to Andrew Sullivan, like Putin, gasp! Took all of two weeks for Palin to have an interview with one of the Big Networks... Help, help, journalists are being repressed!

as [the press] wage[s] the media equivalent of nuclear war against one woman.

hey, it's been no worse than Sarah's campaign to get her sister's ex-husband fired from the State Troopers.

But, as HST said, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." Or as Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley said, "Politics ain't beanbag: 'tis a man's game, and women, children 'n' pro-hy-bitionists had best stay out of it."

So the state of Illinois could have taken the money that was supposed to have gone to the University of Chicago and reallocated it to Loyola University? Cowabunga! They could have taken money earmarked to repair a bridge over the Illinois River and used it to hold keggers for state employees?

Why do I have a hard time believing this?

Do you live in Illinois? They will take the money and use it for whatever they damn well please. They do itall the time here. This state, and especially this governor are throughly corrupt. Oh, and one of the most corrupt people in the state is a guy by the name of Emil Jones; Barak Obama's political sponsor.

Palin and the Earmark "scandal" almost as interesting as the Phlame affair and "Bush Lied, People Died".

How about Palin charging the state of Alaska 60 bucks a day to sleep in her own house?

Lies, expense account finagling, using the power of her office to punish her sister's ex-husband: The woman is an embarrassment; I don't care how hot Republicans think she looks. She is the second coming of Spiro Agnew.

Oh, and John McCain thinks the earth is 5 million years old while Palin thinks its 10,000 years old. Obama, OTOH, agrees with Carl Sagan that its billions and billions of years old. Sadly the only eyewitness to the earth's creation is not giving interviews. And no one else gives a rats ass.

if the sought earmark was a quid pro quo, then how did the Obamas benefit from the $5 million earmark sought for Prentice Women's Hospital?

Nice logic. "If Bush's wiretapping was illegal, why was he able to invade Afghanistan"?

I'm not claiming that all of Obama's earmarks were quid pro quo. Even if you could demonstrate that there was no quid pro quo for the Prentice earmark it wouldn't make the million dollars he gave to his wife's employer magically legit.

Your argument is that out of all the thousands of philanthropic organizations in Illinois, the folks who had just given Obama's wife a $200,000 raise after a few month's work just happened to be among the handful Obama tried to send government money to?

I thought the "lipstick on a pig" brouhaha was silly, too, until I heard the tape of Obama saying it. The reaction of the audience made it clear what they thought he meant. He should have picked up it and clarified himself then and saved himself this diversion. Not ready for prime time? At least, Palin is not claiming she should be heading the ticket.

So the state of Illinois could have taken the money that was supposed to have gone to the University of Chicago and reallocated it to Loyola University? Cowabunga!

Yes, Bart, you idiot, they could have, if Congress did not specifically earmark the money as being for UC. What part of this are you failing to understand? Do you have even the slightest notion of how the government works? You are, allegedly, a former law student, so I'm expecting that you possess some bare minimum of intelligence.

Why do I have a hard time believing this?

Because you are a fool?

The people who pay for this "free" health care are the insured patients and the self-pay patients -- everyone else who goes to the hospital.

Dear God!

Ok, I see that you don't know anything. But have you ever heard of this thing called "Google"? You can go to a website at www dot google dot com and look up Medicaid and Medicare and find all sorts of information on them.

No, damn it, the people who go to the hospital DO NOT pay for the cost of care. That's sort of the whole point of Medicare and Medicaid.